Monday, October 17, 2016

Jill Stein and Anti-Science

The presidential election season in the U.S. is fully upon us and we are bombarded by political content every single day.  A couple of weeks ago I discussed my opinion on why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson based on his views on science.  I briefly mentioned Jill Stein being better on science but still holding several serious anti-science views.  Let me use this post to discuss what I mean on this and why you shouldn't vote for Jill Stein.

It's no secret that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both un-liked candidates by a majority of voters.  This has led to a much talk on an increased third party vote for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.  Despite this, neither is going to win the election.  They don't even have a long shot at winning the election.  Their chances are literally zero of winning.

Jill Stein is certainly better on science than Donald Trump and likely better than Gary Johnson.  However, she is NOT better on science than Hillary Clinton.  Let's start with vaccines.  Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine.  She's fully in support of vaccines, but she makes comments that make it seem as if one needs to be careful of vaccines.  For example, she tweeted:

"As a medical doctor of course I support vaccinations. I have a problem with the FDA being controlled by drug companies."

The problem with this statement is that it makes those already leery of the science of vaccines, even more so based on her questioning the FDA and drug companies.  It's fine to question the FDA and drug companies, but separate this from vaccines.  Jill Stein should know better on this issue.  

Let's look at GMOs.  Stein is in favor of GMO labeling and reducing GMOs in the marketplace.  She is absolutely dead wrong on the science of GMOs.  Study after study after study has found GMOs just as safe as all other food on the market.  The push to label GMOs and denounce GMOs is extremely anti-science and you already know my feelings on anti-science.

Here's potentially the kicker to Stein's anti-science views.  Jill Stein, on the topic of WiFi, has said:

"We should not be subjecting kids’ brains especially to that. And, you know, we don’t follow that issue in this country, but in Europe where they do, they have good precautions around wireless, maybe not good enough, because it’s very hard to study this stuff. We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die."

OMG!  No, Wifi is not harming kids.  It is not causing cancer.  It is not causing illnesses.  It is not weakening children in any way.  There is no scientific evidence at all to support harmful effects due to Wifi.  It is absolutely ridiculous to state there might be health issues related to Wifi.  There are some people who claim to have anecdotal evidence that Wifi signals make them sick, but there is no science to back this up.

Just like I said with Gary Johnson, there is only one electable pro-science candidate on the presidential ballot in the U.S. this year and that is Hillary Clinton.  If you care for science at all, please do NOT vote for Jill Stein.

No comments:

Post a Comment